VIJAI PAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE

                                                [ Reserved On: 29.05.2026 ]
                                                  [Delivered on :29.9.2026]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 54 of 1987

Vijai Pal And Others
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Pushpendra Singh Jadon, Ram Janam
                                   Shahi, S.K.Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.G.A.

Court No. - 54
                       HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.


1. When the case was called out in the revised call, Ms. Babita Upadhyay,
learned Amicus Curiae, was not present.

2. Heard Sri Ram Janam Shahi, learned counsel for appellant nos. 1, 6, 10
and 13, and Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-
respondent.

3. The appeal against appellant nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 has already
stood abated.

4. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 20.12.1986 passed by Shri V.D. Dubey, learned Special Judge
(Economic Offences), Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 444 of 1984 (State Vs.
Karan Singh and others), whereby the appellants have been convicted under
Sections 324/149, 147 and 148 IPC and have been granted the benefit of
probation for a period of one year for maintaining good behaviour and
peace, subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.2,000/- each and a personal
bond in the like amount. The appellants have further been sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.50/- each, with a default sentence of three months' rigorous
imprisonment.

5. An FIR in Crime No. 184-A under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC
was registered at Police Station Malpura, District Agra, by Jaswant Singh,
son of Raghuveer Singh, resident of Village Ladamada, Police Station
Malpura, District Agra, against thirteen accused persons. It was alleged that
                                                            CRLA No. 54 of 1987
                                2

all the accused persons, armed with lathis, sticks, revolvers and country-
made pistols, arrived at his house and exhorted others to kill him.
Immediately thereafter, they started assaulting and firing. In the said
incident, three persons, namely, Bhuri Singh, Hari Chandra and Mahendra
Singh, sustained firearm injuries, while others also received injuries after
being assaulted with lathis.

6. The said FIR was lodged on 06.10.1983, wherein it was stated that the
alleged incident had occurred at about 6:30 a.m. on the said date. The
investigation of the case was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Gyan Singh, who
submitted a charge-sheet against all thirteen accused persons. Charges were
framed against them on the basis of the said charge-sheet under the same
sections as those mentioned in the FIR.

7. The prosecution examined the informant, Jaswant Singh (PW-1), who was
also an eyewitness; Hari Chandra as PW-2; Bhuri Singh as PW-3; and
Mahendra Singh as PW-5. Dr. S.P. Mishra, who had prepared the injury
reports of all three injured persons, was examined as PW-4.

8. The learned trial court, after considering the testimony of the witnesses
and the evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the intention of
the accused persons was to assault Sughad Singh, the then Pradhan of the
village, and that they had not assembled with the intention of causing hurt to
the other persons. Therefore, it could not be held that the injuries sustained
by the three injured persons as a result of the firing by the accused persons
were caused with the intention of killing them.

9. The learned trial court further observed that none of the injured persons
who had sustained firearm injuries had suffered any grievous injury. On this
basis, the learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons of the offence
under Section 307 IPC, but found that the offence committed by them fell
within the ambit of Section 324 IPC. Additionally, all the accused persons
were convicted under Sections 147 and 148 IPC. Accordingly, the learned
trial court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to all
thirteen accused persons in respect of their conviction under Section 324
read with Section 149 IPC. Apart from this, a fine of Rs.50/- each was
imposed upon all thirteen accused persons for the offences under Sections
147 and 148 IPC.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that evidence led before the
learned trial court does not establish that any of the accused persons had
caused any injury to the injured persons either with the intention of causing
such injuries or of committing their murder. It was submitted that the learned
trial court had failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence in the
                                                            CRLA No. 54 of 1987
                                 3

light of the injuries sustained by the accused persons during the incident.

11. It was further contended that the accused persons had also set up their
defence by producing their injury reports, which were duly proved by Dr.
S.P. Mishra, PW-4. It was specifically stated by the accused persons before
the learned trial court that the informant and the other injured witnesses,
armed with lathis, guns and revolvers, had arrived at the house of accused
Karan Singh and had inflicted injuries upon him as well as upon two other
accused persons, namely, Ravindra Singh and Jawahar Singh. However, the
said assertion of the accused persons, which found corroboration from the
injury reports duly proved by PW-4, Dr. S.P. Mishra, was wrongly discarded
by the learned trial court. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial
court convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 324/149, 147
and 148 IPC is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

12. Per contra, Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State,
submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The facts and evidence on record clearly establish that the First Information
Report was lodged promptly and, therefore, there was no possibility of
concoction or exaggeration in the prosecution version. All three injured
witnesses were also produced before the doctor on the same date, and the
doctor found firearm injuries upon the persons of all three injured witnesses.

13. All the witnesses were examined before the learned trial court and were
cross-examined at length. They consistently supported the prosecution
version, which was further corroborated by the injury reports. The nature of
the injuries sustained by the injured persons and the weapons used to inflict
such injuries were sufficient to establish the allegations against the accused
persons. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned trial court, based upon
the evidence available on record, does not warrant any interference by this
Court.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.

15. It is evident that the FIR was lodged promptly and that the injured
persons were medically examined on the same date. The injured persons
were immediately produced before Dr. S.P. Mishra for medical examination.
All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version.
Nothing could be elicited from their testimony which could create any doubt
regarding their credibility or the authenticity of their version.

16. It is relevant to note that all three injured persons had sustained firearm
injuries. They have unequivocally stated that the accused persons, armed
                                                             CRLA No. 54 of 1987
                                 4

with rifles, revolvers, country-made pistols and sticks, had arrived at their
house with the intention of killing them. They further stated that at least five
or six rounds were fired during the incident.

17. The injury reports of all the injured persons have also been perused by
this Court. They indicate that injured PW-3-Bhuri Singh, PW-3, sustained
two firearm injuries, one on the back of his left forearm and the other on the
front of his right leg. Similarly, injured Hari Chandra sustained two firearm
injuries, one on the inner aspect of his right arm and the other on the skin
over his right knee. Injured Mahendra Singh sustained as many as five
firearm injuries. These injuries were found on the skin of the left side of his
face, the front and back of the left side of his chest, the front of his left arm
and the back of his left forearm.

18. No cause or reason has been shown by the defence to disbelieve or
otherwise explain away the firearm injuries sustained by the injured persons.
Therefore, this Court finds no inconsistency or infirmity in the finding
recorded by the learned trial court.

19. Injuries received by appellants were also considered by Learned Trial
Court. It observed that appellant Karan sustained abrasion on his back.
Appellant Ravindra had pellet injury on his back. Injury report of appellant
Jawahar was not proved. It was held by trial court that said injuries are
minor and minimal compared to that received by the prosecution witness.
The said findings in respect of injuries sustained by appellants are consistent
with the finding regarding nature of injuries received by injured witnesses. It
is evident that Trial Court has adopted similar parameters for appreciating
the injuries if both sides. Hence, same does not warrant interference.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful consideration of the
evidence available on record, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or
perversity in the judgment and order dated 20.12.1986 passed by the learned
trial court. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and do
not call for any interference by this Court.

21. Before parting with this judgment, this Court feels restrained to observe
that, conclusions drawn by Trial Court after examination of prosecution
witness to convert the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 324
I.P.C., is unsustainable. The injured witnesses have sustained pellet injuries.
Number of pellet injuries sustained by them, manner of occurrence, weapons
used, if considered together leaves no room of doubt that act committed by
appellant definitely falls within the purview of Section 307 I.P.C.
Considering that appeal is against conviction, this Court, except either
                                                                                              CRLA No. 54 of 1987
                                                                   5

                                    affirming or reversing the judgment has no further jurisdiction to enhance
                                    the sentence.

                                    22. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. The
                                    judgment and order dated 20.12.1986 passed by the learned Special Judge
                                    (Economic Offences), Agra, in Sessions Trial No.444 of 1984 (State Vs.
                                    Karan Singh and others), insofar as it relates to the present appellants, is
                                    hereby affirmed.

                                    23. The appellants shall abide by the terms and conditions of the probation
                                    granted by the learned trial court. The fine, if already deposited, shall be
                                    dealt with in accordance with law.

                                    24. Let the lower court record, if any, be transmitted back to the court
                                    concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and
                                    necessary compliance.
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                            (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad